BCT Editorial – 11/1/05

This page was last updated on November 3, 2005.

Hypocrites; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 1, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“When it comes to nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, what’s good for conservatives should be good for the U.S. Senate as well.

“Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has pointed out that in crumbling to conservatives in regard to the now-withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the president ‘single-handedly undercut the conservatives’ long standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president’s choice for the court.”

[RWC] As a reminder, a “columnist” is an opinion writer. Therefore, this editorial is based on another opinion piece, not fact.

“‘Conservatives displayed absolutely no deference to Mr. Bush when he picked someone they didn’t like. The actual conservative ‘principle’ was that the Senate should defer to the president’s choice - as long as that choice is acceptable to conservatives. Some principle.’

“Dionne’s point is well taken. How is it that U.S. senators, who have been elected by voters, are supposed to accept whatever a president sends their way while unelected, often self-appointed members of the conservative movement are so powerful and influential that they are kowtowed to by the White House?”

[RWC] I guess the author missed the fact that a lot of Republican – and Democrat – senators were not thrilled with Ms. Miers. The author wants us to believe senators were all for Ms. Miers, but were swayed by “unelected, often self-appointed members of the conservative movement.” By the way, what’s wrong with being “unelected?” Aren’t the vast majority of us unelected? Are we to vote for representatives and then shut up?

“As Dionne concluded, ‘conservatives will come to regret making their willingness to contradict their own principle plain for all to see.’

“Their hypocrisy on the Miers nominations and other issues will come back to haunt them.”

[RWC] The editorial begins with a faulty premise and ends with a faulty conclusion.

The editorial claims conservatives advanced a position that the Senate should accept a president’s nominee without question. That’s completely ridiculous. What most conservatives did say was that assuming a person is qualified (education, experience, etc.) for the position, the Senate should defer to the president’s choice. No one ever claimed an unqualified person or a “bad” person should be approved for the court. Note, I’m not claiming Ms. Miers was either unqualified or a bad person.

I can’t speak for all conservatives, as apparently can the Times, but I was willing to wait for the hearings.

Before the Times calls anyone a hypocrite, perhaps it should remember Republicans deference to Bill Clinton’s nominees. Republicans approved (93%, 41-3) Ruth Ginsburg for the Supreme Court despite the fact she advanced some truly screwy ideas (coed prisons, reduce age of sexual consent to 12, etc.) and served as chief counsel for the ACLU. Republicans also approved (78%, 32-9) Stephen Breyer. How many Democrats approved John Roberts? Only 50% (22-22).